The Iranian: Millionaire Mullahs by Paul Klebnikov In the Islamic Republic of Iran, is the clergy part of the problem or the solution? Khomeini’s political philosophy professes the Guardianship of the Jurist and that economics is for donkeys. How do the millionaire mullahs affect Iran’s ability to govern? Are Clergy above corruption? Islamic? Republic?
Know this: My intentions are not to offend anyone, but simply to illustrate my concern.
Choosing someone to blame is only half of the solution. It’s clear, there exists a fragmented society within the boundaries of the religiously based governmental rule and infrastructure of the state of Iran, guided by the precepts of Islam. Its nation is a different circumstance, as the culture is comprised of more young men than suggests a developed country; it provides disillusion for the heads of household and in effect, a skewed perspective of what ethics should describe—at least according to conservative thought. Most of these men have grown up or are growing up with the concept that they must carry the weight and set the example of their family’s societal values and meanwhile support the family’s financial wellbeing. The double standard applied between the sexes is far from any Western ideology: if you are male, mandated by Allah, you are expected to be the sole provider for your household and all the duties it might entail. What a novel concept. Not. However, despite the lack of equality or serious opportunity for both genders, it must be acknowledged that the majority of Iranian men are bent on the idea they’re all their family has, even if they’re not of a suitable age to take on all the responsibility. This can be attributed to several predicaments, including external forces’ ground campaigns that forced conscription, suicide missions, etc. It defeats most forms of logic to succumb to the belief that these young men, growing up in seemingly broken homes, have the slightest idea what life provides or its meaning, other than the religious context of their daily lives and the fact they must subsist because there is nothing else.Religion is the greatest scapegoat for all means of destruction and volatility of any state. In the days of old, everything was based on tradition and succeeding the past with greater victories for the future, in this case all battles or limited struggles having been constructed, developed and executed in the name of Allah. Some call it brainwashing, while others would claim servant hood. In any case, it’s their way of life: sunup to sundown, it’s all about Allah. The clergy are the leaders in direct contact with Allah. Making a coherent sequitur says that the clergy are also men serving Allah. Many of these religious leaders have not gone according to plan. Their opportunistic behavior denies all altruism, which is what humility and servant hood preach. The clerical rulers allow the mullahs to use unconventional means to get their point across, “no opposition, otherwise we will squash you”, such as letting go the Revolutionary Guards or the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang to sick on all nonconformists. In this light, the clergy equal Mafioso because of their strong-arm tactics and initiative to send out browbeaters to get the job done. But, at least with the Mafia, Yacuza, la Cosa Nostra, and any other gridiron gang, it’s obvious where they stand and the means by which they achieve their power. Isn’t the issue more of a concern because of the disheveled state of Iran, being that religion is involved and apparently malleable for convenience of factions with titles such as “ayatollah”, “clerics” and their self-interests?
It’s asphyxia to humanity when those in power demolish any hope of change, as they have demeaned all legitimate existence of the government, where here it’s theocratic rule, as faith and religion cannot cohabitate with corruption and ignorance. Men of Allah are not men who seek to cripple the private sector, but rather, those who help the common man. Or should. These ayatollah who have annihilated the expectations of goodness and modesty interfere with the actual foundations set up for change because money is redirected from tithes to foreign bank accounts and invested in the ayatollahs’ luxurious lifestyles, giving them an upper hand as mullahs, with purchasing habits orchestrated by the materialistic assets held when men such as Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and family own a domineering pistachio export business, a large copper mine, a TV network, one of Iran’s biggest oil engineering companies, and a major airline—even though they deny all claims to owning such assets. He did a lot to rebuild the economy by establishing trade relations with foreign countries and developing a nuclear program, “but most of the good properties and valuable contracts ended up with the mullahs and their associates and Rafsanjani”. Anyone attempting to shed some insight on the corruption becomes an unfavorable opponent for those who abuse power and their primary solution, being the narrow minded ruffians that they are; it’s risky to try and put any check on such power, however bloated it has become because of the calls of duty in the name of Allah, as two-faced brazen men seek to thwart any and all dissidents that might be slightly capable of providing the truth (i.e. foreign journalists). Most certainly, hubris is no credible excuse for an arrogant attitude, especially since there hasn’t been any effective reform made despite the rebellious disorientation of the youth. Can they really be held accountable for their protests or radical behavior when they want change but are not given the tools to mandate such things because they aren’t granted true efficacy? Before they were appointed to lead in regards to the will of Allah, they were men with political ambitions; they are still men. It wasn’t always this way, with ferocious jeers for change thrust forth by the youth. They swamp whole blocks, streets and marketplaces—anywhere they feel they might be heard. The young faces travel in droves, with signs to pursue a cause and piercing glances that have seen the deterioration of previous generations; these youths who demonstrate a need for modification are the ones who will suffer and have suffered because no change will come. Their tussle with authority breeds a social revolution. Breathing the wrong way, much less conspiring to oust the oppressors, the same men who wail for Allah and pocket much of the money that believers offer to foundations in the name of Allah, is a direct link to why efficacy and any outside influence is always snuffed by those with the power. These clergy are left to “check” themselves—there is no watchdog, because they must only answer to Allah. Without any mutual power of rejection or an opportunity to prevent tyranny, how is it possible that Iran’s government is effective when factions, as represented by men in cloaks with fuzzy beards and ostensively modest headwear, are the majority seeking to benefit [their] self-interests, and are crippling the legitimacy of government? which is supposed to be an institution that provides control and administration of public policy. Is it accurate or even proper to say that the clerics who know the grave situation but do nothing are any less to blame? Claiming ignorance isn’t simply enough: it’s no excuse for condoning the habit of threading funds through the back door to feed the selfish cravings of the mullahs. Regression has a habit of allowing men to backslide.
Not all men who have been in power have exercised abuse during their rule; Ayatollah Khomeini is one such man. Khomeini’s political philosophy professed a Robin Hood-like nature of the government: the people deserve what’s coming to them, even if checking most authorities and seizing goods is the only way such goals can be achieved. But he’s dead. So are most remnants of his beliefs in the citizens and their capabilities to conduct their own lifestyles/ decisions, because even though he proposed conservative views, he still worked to provide low-income housing and health clinics. The ramifications of abandoning such attitudes for social welfare have led to the precarious environment of Iran’s political culture.
No single man can carry all the blame, but in a nation dominated by rebellious twenty-somethings who don’t accede the way the government has malnourished the social prevalence of dignity, at least one fraction of the guilt can be placed on those in power, be it the clergy or the ayatollah. Mullahs are the millionaires looking to perpetuate their high level of income. If an ayatollah is also rich, known as a mullah, and he does little or nothing to assist the poverty stricken Iranians he speaks to when interpreting the religious scripts of Allah; or, a cleric is fully aware of the means in which he denounces Islam by his faithless actions of gypping Allah’s followers when he allows the Ayatollah to redistribute the wealth amongst those already well-off, then Iran’s government is left in shambles and not due to external causes but because such men with insight, authority and power have depreciated the internal foundations of the state. It is questionable whether or not these men have a guilty conscious or have accepted the same religious ethics they spew, but they have only themselves to blame when their nation falls, as they were too busy with their hands in the cookie jar, instead of contributing to the common good or general welfare of the citizens. If anything, the mullahs with religious backing only give the government a bad reputation. Why would anyone want to be obedient or complacent to a ruling organization that has shown no effort to improve its peoples’ state of being, but rather has only taken advantage of their income (which, a percentage undoubtedly goes into a mullah’s pocket), their family members (who, if are of a ripe age will be drafted for some rich man’s war), and the generations to come? These higher clergy are men; these men will falter; these men in power are above the law by statutes of the legislature illustrated by Islamic beliefs and societal norms for Iran; these men are above corruption if they choose to do what is ethical and apply their free will. Choosing to do the wrong thing but having no other tangible authority to answer to doesn’t mean the bad deed will subside: it still remains.The Islamic Republic is a complicated state of awareness and lack of common sense. It’s a pseudotheocracy, with religious leaders and laws attuned to the Sharia; however, it is a republic because Iran lays claim to a partially autonomous unit with sovereignty, while also giving power to its citizens to elect representatives who will be responsible to them. In spite of these factors, efficacy is a joke. How is it possible that any judiciary is truly self-directed, when the people are neglected of any benefit because those in power, claiming to be directly accountable to these citizens, are robbing the meager blind? Forging economic cleavage is doing more to sustain the haves, it’s defilement to the very meaning of a religiously based government and the sacred texts—it’s a class action for defamation of the state’s belief.
